Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qatar Airways Flight 962

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Strong consensus to delete. There was a suggestion late in the AfD to redirect to List of air rage incidents. That didn't see any discussion, so while it seems reasonable, I'm not going to include it in the consensus. That doesn't preclude somebody from creating the redirect on their own. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar Airways Flight 962[edit]

Qatar Airways Flight 962 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose the deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. Flight diversions happen every day. Wykx (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in my keep !vote, the coverage meets the notability guidelines. Reconsider your !vote. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One instance of air-rage is not notable, has no lasting impact and is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes I too can't see how this diverted flight meets WP:LASTING. A referenced mention should be added to main article Qatar Airways, which as of now doesn't even mention it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable diversion, happens every week. Mjroots (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In today's Internet society, even the most simple of incidents gets a big blow-up of coverage - briefly. But there usually isn't any persistence to the coverage of events that in the past would have gone entirely unremarked. Now, if we had, or get, List of air rage incidents, that could be a notable subject (and a worthy redirect target), but individual full articles don't pass the bar. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wykx, Dom Kaos, Shawn in Montreal, Mjroots, and Lugnuts:@The Bushranger: Allright, this is the only !vote that seems to have been made with the editor actually engaging their brain rather than just mindlessly regurgitating policy shortcuts with some intervening verbiage that appears to make sense; I am truly dismayed at the decline in quality and intellectual rigor among AfD regulars since I was last part of that group a decade or so ago (Perhaps we should start requiring a certain amount of articles to be created or expanded for every deletion nomination made ... that skill seems to be at too much of a premium these days when it just gets more important to Wikipedia's continued health every year).

I will convert this into a redirect and be starting a list of air rage incidents (I would say "unruly aircraft passenger incidents" but there are more than you would think—DAL 2598, DAL 2422, that Air India flight where the pilots got into a fistfight before takeoff—where crew were the unruly ones) once the nominator has been so kind as to withdraw this; there are plenty of incidents I had been keeping a list of with the idea of creating articles on them but to be fair I do see the logic of not really needing information about the aircraft involved (And compiling such a list would actually be an excellent way to use my editing time and resources over the upcoming U.S. holiday week, NTITOI).

I do, however, reserve the right to argue that certain air-rage incidents, like United Airlines Flight 976, would be entitled to standalone articles per the criteria outlined above (And I would like to see at least some of the delete !voters target their apparently boundless energies in this area toward reviewing the many articles we have in the "aviation accidents and incidents" category where a plane diverted due to a mechanical problem, no one was hurt or killed, and the incident did not have any lasting importance. Why do those articles get kept, if they're even nominated? I really don't see the difference) Daniel Case (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because, in a lot of cases, they result in procedural or regulational changes as a result of the investigation and analysis. Those that don't should be deleted or redirected, but we get a lot of "it's all over the news, it must be notable" !votes in those. I agree there's (far) too much deletion going on, but on the flip side we need to spread awareness of WP:RECENTISM when it comes to breadth of coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: Thanks for your reasoned and well-thought out contribution to this discussion. It's a pleasure interacting with people like you who understand how to be civil, how to drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass ... you are a credit to the project. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you do indeed "have a brain", read WP:NPA. I stopped reading your vitriolic diatribe at that point. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, really? Stop hectoring people for adhering to policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC
I've issued him a user talk page warning. Not in the habit of doing so to regulars or admins but this is ridiculous. And if he persists in this line then a temp. block would be merited imo, sysop or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal and Lugnuts: I have had the chance to go out and eat and calm down and I apologize for my indelicate choice of words (I would strike them out, but as you have already chosen to delete them yourself, something that I really don't think is the wisest way to deal with situations like that (Better to ask the other person to do so by way of apology), I don't need to).

All the same, I commend your attention to WP:JUSTA and urge you to follow Bushranger's example in the future. It is not immediately obvious to a reader how the pages cited in the nomination are directly relevant: NOTNEWS is largely about what to add or not add to existing articles, and RECENTISM is a guideline that could be interpreted either way. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTA is an essay not a policy. It would be embarrassing to point that out to an admin. Oh. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: I did not represent it as a policy. It's a guideline, one of many on that page, to help editors have more productive XfDs. I don't see why it's so difficult to understand that there's a difference, demonstrated above by Bushranger vs. everyone else, between simply spitting out shortcuts and taking the time to demonstrate the relevance to the material at hand. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I represented my "vote" as a policy, you did not. You simpy said it's "clearly notable". And if I may be so bold to use your essay page, WP:ITSNOTABLE isn't a valid reason to keep something. You mention something about standards being better a decade ago, above. However, there must have been a very low threshold at WP:RFA back in the day to allow someone like you through, based on my first and only impression of you in this AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: You're changing the subject. My !vote and the justifications for it are irrelevant since I have accepted the consensus of this AfD that a standalone article on this incident is not necessary, once Bushranger framed his !vote the way we all should and I agreed with his logic. I was pointing out that unlike everyone else who !voted, Bushranger recognized that it's a good idea to explain how policy relates to a specific article when you explain why it should be deleted. You can accept that without conceding the logic of your !vote (especially when, as I have said, I now agree with it).

And, like now-departed (supposedly) Shawn, you seem obsessed with my admin status when I never invoked it in any way to justify why the article ought to be kept, or my request to end the AfD now that I have agreed to turn the article into a redirect, much less even mentioned it (That would be wrong in so many ways). I can see why you might feel it's relevant, and I don't know what your experience might have been, but I assure you I have no intention of using any admin tools to resolve this if that's what you're expecting.

All I asked a couple of days ago was that, since I have agreed now that we do not need a standalone article on this incident and I have instead begun developing a list of air rage incidents, that we end this AfD so we can move ahead with that process instead of waiting around dumbly for a week for someone to close this. This is what we would have done in the old days. And what we can still do now. I do not want to do it myself because policy says you can't just remove an AfD tag on your own initiative; I suppose I could at this point but that would look bad and I think it's better done if consensus is behind turning it into a redirect. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stated succinctly, adequately and politely what my policy based concern is. I cannot believe you're both an admin and an oversighter but as such you should know exactly what the policy issues are when I raised this and linked to policy. Moreover, your command to dom Kaos to reconsider based on your preference was pretty rude. You've attempted to bully people here and if there's one thing I despise, Daniel Case, one thing: it's a bully. Oh and I didn't delete any of your comments. Please don't ping me anymore. I'm leaving Wikipedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm about to put the kettle on: who's up for a nice cup of tea and a sit-down? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comments. I'm known for being an inclusionist, but this incident falls way short of the threshold for inclusion. Not often that I !vote delete, but in this instance it is warranted. Mjroots (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to agree with The Bushranger that creating a list of these events would be better. What I'm asking for is consensus to turn this into a redirect so I can create a list. Is everyone OK with this? Daniel Case (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and oppose redirection as this is a minor incident. There are hundreds of such incidences and many don't receive coverage beyond one or two articles. For an event to be notable, there should be some lasting impact or coverage, but this one seems to have none. I am also not sure if a "list of air rage" articles should be created. The term air-rage is not well defined and many instances may or may not be considered air rage. For example, recently there was an incident in Indigo where a passenger was restrained and manhandled by ground staff [1]. Should it be considered air rage? My other big concern is about the privacy of living people. Many of the people involved are not public figures but private people who were only involved in one single incident. Creating articles with their details may lead to increased scrutiny on them once again.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamLinker: Yes, I would consider that air rage, there was a significantly similar incident in a terminal back in the U.S. in 1999 where a man assaulted a Continental Airlines gate agent after the agent restrained him from running after his young son who had gone past a security checkpoint. It was called air rage at the time. Our air rage article says it occurs "typically during flight", meaning it is not restricted to in-flight behavior.

As for the BLP concerns, I think it's safe to say that only in cases where people were convicted of criminal offenses should we use their names, and that's what I've been doing in the list I started last night.

But this is beyond the scope of this discussion; it really should take place on the talk page for that list. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Flight incidents generally are only notable if there is a significant incident where loss of life or craft. We don't need an article for more common incidents involving aborted flights. Ajf773 (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773: Right, that's why I took Bushranger's advice and started a list. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above notnews , with no lasting effects, references or notability.--Petebutt (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Someone hit their spouse on an airplane? Just not a notable incident. As usual the press jumps all over this because it happened on an airplane. Would this have made the news if it happened in a home or a restaurant? I doubt it. I am not opposed to a list of these incidents, but this is far too minor to sustain a stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence this story will have lasting notability. I would also be opposed to a "list of air rage incidents" page for two reasons: It would become a repository for non-notable incidents such as this, and it would likely be a morass of original research. How many of these incidents are analyzed and described as "air rage" by experts or academic sources? Shelbystripes (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shelbystripes: "It would become a repository for non-notable incidents such as this ..." The media coverage easily passes WP:GNG; you are probably saying you wish it didn't, and I think we all feel that way about some things that have gotten articles that have been kept at AfDs, but that's an argument better taken up at WT:N, I think.

Now, we all seem to have agreed, however, that the incident is not notable enough for a standalone article. That's why we have lists, for incidents of a recurrent phenomenon that is itself notable where we do not have standalone articles. " ... and it would likely be a morass of original research." If we set strict criteria as to inclusion, as I already have at the list (incidents that resulted in arrests or diversions of the flight), we will forestall any OR. "How many of these incidents are analyzed and described as "air rage" by experts or academic sources?" More than you were probably thinking when you asked the question, I imagine ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Sorry, but no, it cannot both "easily pass GNG" and be "not notable enough for a standalone article", since these are inherently contradictory things. WP:GNG also expressly warns that "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Extensive but brief media coverage without further analysis is not evidence of notability. See also WP:NOTNEWS. And absent reliable independent sources that analyze whether a particular incident constitutes "air rage", including this incident on a compiled list of non-notable incidents would be impermissible original research. Your examples of scholarly articles are useful and may justify the existence of a list... just not inclusion of this incident on it. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shelbystripes: Well, at least until someone does write about it in a roundup of these incidents ... I am finding as I look through these cases from the 1990s and (now) early 2000s that, indeed, not all of those from that period are long-term notable. So believe me it wouldn't be an indiscriminate list. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: BTW, if it's analysis that makes these incidents notable, note that there has indeed already been some about this one ... look at the "commentary" section. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: It still is, as far as I can tell. But so are a bunch of other flight numbers used for more lethal incidents (we have a list of the retired ones somewhere but I can't find it). Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mundane incident with no lasting significance. Flights are diverted regularly for disruptive passengers and medical issues, but we needn't have an encyclopedia article about each occurrence simply due to coverage in the media.--Pontificalibus (talk) 10:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qatar_Airways_Flight_962&oldid=1073215963"